It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Constitution , Executive order & the army's obligation

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 03:05 PM
reply to post by JaxonRoberts

What the blue hell does that have to do with anything?

Because you were trying to give the impression that you were some expert on the subject with "eight years of experience." So your MOS, whatever it might have been, obviously does not make you any more qualified on the topic than anyone else here.

Or are you just trying to insult my service to my country again?

Again? I would never do such a thing in the first place.

The fact is that I did know that it was not legal for US military forces to deploy on US soil.

And up until 9/11, bag searches in the subway were also illegal.

In order for this to happen, 'King George' would have to have the backing of 218 members of the House of Representatives, 50 members of the Senate, all 50 State Governors and 5 Supreme Court Justices.

Already done, and packaged up nicely in the Patriot Act, which can be "legally" invoked at any time. Any President can now put troops on the street any time they deem that an "emergency" exists, without any prior opproval or oversight. Checks and balances has been thrown right out the window at this point.

Now that's one hell of a conspiracy!

Yes. Has you fooled aparrently.

This is not even taking into account the massive desertion rate that would run rampant through the military...

Hasn't heppened yet. What would be the deciding factor that would suddenly invoke "mass desertion?" At one point only the National Guard was allowed to deploy on American soil in case of emergency. (Think about the Watts riots, the Kent State shootings, etc.)

the total recall of all US troops overseas

Why? Troops would only be backing up the formidable police apparatus already in place. Not to mention that foreign troops might also be called in to support as well. Canadians for example, can now be called in legally.

and the fact that our military has taken 5 years to finally get control over most of Iraq, a country only slightly larger than the State of California, and a population of 29 million people! Now you think that they can just waltz in and take control of a country that is 22.5 times the size of Iraq and a population of over 300 million people, 34% of which own 200 million guns!

Completely different story. The dynamics, the psychology, the tactics, all entirely different. Not to mention the fat that the "occupying army" is already here, not invading. Talk about comparing apples and oranges. You're comparing oranges to cannibal stew.

posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 03:43 PM

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by JaxonRoberts


I spent 8 years defending the Constitution, so I would be the last person to justify any suspension of it, under any circumstances.

No wonder why we're in so much trouble then.

This is the first time. It is apparent you are just trolling for an arguement and not in a factual debate, so don't even bother to reply to this post, as it will be ignored.

posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 04:03 PM
I will quote something from a site that I found that troubles me greatly , I will also post the link so that any one interested can read for them selves .

Should President George W. Bush proclaim and put into effect Executive Order 12919, "the President would put the United States under total Martial Law and Military Dictatorship." [2]
"The President need not wait for some emergency to occur, however. He can declare a National Emergency at any time, and freeze everything. Congress, and the States, are powerless to prevent such an Executive Dictatorship, as long as the President advises Congress in a timely matter." [3]
Executive Authority

Executive Order 12656 "Assignment of Emergency Preparedness Responsibilities", February 16, 2004 plus Executive Order 13074, Amendment to EO 12656, February 9, 1998.
"Executive Order Number 12656 appointed the National Security Council as the principal body that should consider emergency powers. This allows the government to increase domestic intelligence and surveillance of U.S. citizens and would restrict the freedom of movement within the United States and grant the government the right to isolate large groups of civilians. The National Guard could be federalized to seal all borders and take control of U.S. air space and all ports of entry." [4]
Executive Order 11921 "Adjusting Emergency Preparedness Assignments to Organizational and Functional Changes in Federal Departments and Agencies" allows the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) [stated as the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency] to "develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months."

The source for this info was found here

If this is true this is most alarming .

posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 04:10 PM
reply to post by JaxonRoberts

I was poking fun at your posturing, not your service, if you did in fact serve.

Furthermore, I am certrainly not trolling as I take these issues very seriously, as shown by my work here on ATS.

Lastly, if you are unable to continue the debate, it would be better that you bow out in a more "sportsman-like" manner than accusng me of being a troll and then "ignoring" me. But don't worry, it's okay to be wrong sometimes, so long as you learn from it.

posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 04:14 PM
reply to post by Max_TO

Hmm, interesting. The year "1998" jumped out at me there. Pre- 9/11 and Patriot Act, but post OKC bombing.

Everyone talks about the warrantless wiretaps as if it were a contemporary issue, when in fact, the FBI has been able to listen in the phone lines without a warrant since the OKC bombing.

posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 04:27 PM
It seems to me , my untrained and uneducated eye , that in many regards the constitution is already being broke bit by bit over time , so slow in fact that many don't even notice what is happening , almost like the hands moving on a watched clock . The changes seem so gradual that everyone is simply going a long and the matter of constitutional right is becoming a loosely used term with less meaning with each new " passed law " . This is what I spoke about earlier when I spoke of the hole constitutional right issue becoming such a grey area that the people and army will simply go along with out even knowing the great harm that is being brought in and in forced .

Please tell me that I am nuts and have this all wrong , please .

This is what made me make this post in the first place , I want to be told that the army will always in force the constitution regardless of the fact that they may face a firing squad .

posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 04:39 PM
reply to post by Max_TO

Please tell me that I am nuts and have this all wrong , please .

I am sorry, but if I were to tell you that you are wrong, it would be a lie. You are actually quite correct. Your analogy of the clock is also known as "boiled frog syndrome."

If you throw a live frog into a pot of boiling water on the stove, it will jump right back out. But if you put the frog in a pot of water, and then slowly turn up the heat, he will sit right there until he has boiled to death.

We are told that the Constitution is a "living document" that is meant to change with the times. That is a lie. It was the basic set of rules put forth so that the people would know when the government had gone too far and was usurping liberty. The only purpose of Constitution was to protect people from the government.

posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 11:59 AM
This thread has splintered into a few directions.
I am interested in one thing.
We are all aware that "king george" is bending our laws and making it legal, to do things that were once illegal for him to do.
My question is...
If the people revolt, or the president declares martial law and then the people revolt...
Do you think our military will be on the side of the people or the government?

And one more actually...
The president has flipped laws as we all know, so that illegal actions on his part are now legally justified. (supposedly)
At what point does it become the DUTY of the military to step in and stop this on our behalf?
If he is literally violating the constitution (whether lawyers say it is "legal" or not) at what point, if any, is the military obligated to intervene?

posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 12:36 PM
It is convenient that ALOT of the troops that ARE responsible for protecting US soil (National Guard) are deployed abroad and Regular Army troops are being brought home to do this job even though it is unconstitutional.

We have to get these criminals ("leaders") put on trial.

I am just glad it is not going to be MY name in the history books.

[edit on 11-10-2008 by VampyrOsis]

[edit on 11-10-2008 by VampyrOsis]

posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 12:54 PM
Upon Military Enlistment, We Swore An Oath

as follows:

I, (name), do solemnly swear/affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same...
So help me God

there's also more to it, but there is provision to disregard what are believed to be unlawful orders.

and remember, the U.S. Military is your Brothers & Sisters, Mothers & Fathers, & Friends

I DO worry about all the $$ Private $$ military firms that have sprouted up though (ie. Blackwater, etc.), seriously !

posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 06:36 PM
Upon Military Enlistment, We Swore An Oath !

as follows:

I, (name), do solemnly swear/affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same...

So help me God

there's also more to it... But most importantly, there are provisions to disobey what are believed to be unlawful orders.

Remember, the U.S. Military is your Brothers & Sisters, Mothers & Fathers, Family & Friends

Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. - John 15:13

I DO fear all the $$ Private $$ military firms that have sprouted up though (ie. Blackwater, etc.), seriously !

[edit on 11-10-2008 by atoms.2008]

posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 04:53 PM
reply to post by ashamedamerican

Yes my reason for starting this thread . With executive orders and all the new laws brought in " for our own good " one has to wonder what will become of the constitution .
Not to mention the foreign nationalist being recruited into the US army , who would find it a lot easier to take an action which might not be constitutional .

posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 06:29 PM
I'm not sure if anyone saw my questions above, so I appologize for the double post here.

The constitution is clearly being perverted and violated by this president as well as others in the government.

At what point, if any, is the military obligated to defend our constitution by removing the people in power and returning our governemt to the people?

Unless I am mistaken we passed that point a long time ago correct?

Is there a clear cut line that must be crossed for this to happen? or is it a grey area?

[edit on 12-10-2008 by ashamedamerican]

[edit on 12-10-2008 by ashamedamerican]

posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 06:34 PM
reply to post by ashamedamerican

I think many agree with you and the notion of " it cant happen here " has blinded us to what has happened here . It , in my mind , has been a slow erosion over time so slow in fact many have not noticed or have been lead to believe that its for there best interest and just go on watching , dancing with the stars or some other dribble , thinking that none of this really effects them .

[edit on 12-10-2008 by Max_TO]

posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 06:35 PM
can anyone tell me what is the military responsibility, if the president AND congress start making laws that violate the constitution? like say, trying to make socialistic style laws?

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 01:24 AM
Just to clarify a few points & questions I've seen in this thread so far:

The Constitutional Oath of Office only extends so far as any person still possessing any legal reason to occupy the Office that requires the When a President steps down & no longer holds Office (any other Office that he may step into after leaving the first Office), the legal obligation to obey that Oath also ends. This is because the Constitution itself does not specifically extend the obligations of Office beyond the time that the duties of Office are still imposed. As long as the actual "contractual obligation" of the Office is finished, so to ends the obligated limitations coupled with it. Yes, the Constitution is literally a "contract of employment" between the People (the employer) & the government (the employees) & the Oath of Office is equal to a lawful signature on any other contract. This Constitutional contract not only defines what jobs the employees have, but also defines what limitations they have for "professional conduct." The Bill of Rights is literally a list of potential crimes that the employees must arbitrate if the employers are having problems with each other, as well as establishes "acceptable conduct" among employees as well.

The way the Constitution was written states that all People are Sovereign Citizens, with the Constitution itself establishing certain Civil Rights to be enforced between all Citizens: This list of Rights (ie: The Bill of Rights) was never intended to be all-inclusive or even a complete list of Rights...The Supreme Court has been known to "interpret" other inherent Rights from the "spirit of the Constitution" in circumstances where it wasn't expressly written: One example is the Right to Travel Freely.

In short, all political power belongs to the People (Indeed, many if not all State Constitutions flat-out say this openly!), the Constitution outlines our basic Laws of the Land & organizes a politically limited government for performing the "common duties" that the Common Law defines for the whole society.

The Constitution also establishes the form of government that must equally enforce all of those Rights whenever Sovereign Citizens find contention among themselves...But to serve in a government Office, this in effect causes certain Sovereign Citizens to willingly waive some of their own personal Sovereign Rights & Lawfully limit their actions during the time they serve in Office. But once a Government Official has performed the duties & steps down from Office, he/she re-obtains his/her full Sovereign status & Rights under the Constitution.

The Civil Duty of the Sovereign Citizen still remains at all times, however: Only Common Law (ie: Upholding the equal Rights among all Citizens & personally avoid violating the equal Rights of others) has any true jurisdiction over Sovereign Citizens. The one & other (perhaps most important) Civil Duty is to keep vigilance on our Government Officers to assure that they don't step beyond the specific duties & limitations of their Office & violate the Rights of the rest of the Citizens!

This even extends into "Emergency Acts" as well! The Supreme Law of the Land is just that: Supreme above all other law, whether legislated, declared, or merely even enacted as "policy," nothing the government does is allowed to supercede the Supreme Law, under any circumstances whatsoever! Each such instance when any government Officer exceeds these Constitutionally-imposed limits, we lose our Common Law for all Citizens!

This is what separates the Constitutional Republic from being a Democracy! In a Democracy all it takes is one charismatic individual to persuade 51% of the population to "vote away" the Rights of the other 49%...Which in turn winds up voting away the Rights of everyone at the same time! Obedience to the Constitution as the Supreme Law is what avoids that fatal flaw in a Democracy!

Originally posted by Max_TO
Executive orders have been used by presidents since 1789, even though there is no constitutional provision or statute allowing it. "

This is true...Executive Orders are no more than "policy" (technically can only be enforced within the Executive Branch itself & nowhere else) which can never even carry the same level of authority as Congressional Legislation, which becomes actual Law (Statutory Law): Policy can never supercede Legislation & Legislation can never supercede Common Law (the Constitution).

Most of the "laws" in effect now have, in truth, been enforced beyond their jurisdictional & Constitutional limitations as if the were equal or superior to the Constitution itself...As a blatant violation committed by law enforcement officers! One of the problems is that probably most LA Officers have no idea that this is what's happened! They're trained to enforce the laws, but they are not educated to understand which laws have precedence over the others & which jurisdictions that these different laws were meant to enforce!

In effect, when the laws are violated by government officials & the People allow the perpetrators get away with it, we become a "nation without law"...An anarchy! Right now, the government is merely trying to establish as much control as they can over a nation that they themselves had led into anarchy by violating that same nation's laws!

Originally posted by jackinthebox

The Constitution was designed to ensure public safety, not endanger it.

But safety from what? The Constitution was created to protect the people from the government!

Precisely! The Constitution was established to limit what the government can do! You, me & all other US Citizens are the only ones who truly have the power to enforce the Constitution! Without us, it becomes just what Bush says..."just a GD piece of paper." It must be obeyed by all government officials, in all three branches & at all levels, right down to the city dog-catcher (at least, as long as it's a civil office). The People are the only ones who can ensure that the government officers will obey it!
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty." -- Thomas Jefferson

So, in answer to the original question posed by the OP, the grounds to refuse the CIC's orders depends on whether those orders were issued lawfully, in accordance with the Constitution; Any order that causes our military personnel to disobey its own Oath of Office is an unlawful order. Not even Executive Orders can supercede the Constitutional Oath of Office! Even the UCMJ reflects this: "I was just following orders" is no defense in a court martial if the soldier on trial has violated the Constitutional Oath: This is how War Crimes charges are upheld as valid charges, even if the violations were committed "under orders." In truth (if not in practice), the "superior officer" who originally issued unlawful orders in the first place will also come under court martial as well!

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by JaxonRoberts

Wait a minute, what? You said this earlier...

I spent 8 years defending the Constitution, so I would be the last person to justify any suspension of it, under any circumstances.

...and you just found out what Posse Comitatus is? How exactly did you spend those eight years?

Hmmm...Actually, the Posse Comitatus is merely an expansion & clarification of what originally appears in the Constitution...Specifically under the 3rd Amendment:
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
ONe thing I notice there is that this Amendment does not make any distinction between "official government military soldiers" or "private mercenary contractors." So, theoretically comes the idea that use of "contracted" troops by the government is also restricted by the 3rd Amendment too.

Any Congressional legislation (ie: like the Military Commissions Act--Look it up) that acts contrary to the Constitution cannot be enforced as law & especially any Executive Orders or Bush's "signing statements" are also not law! In truth, these actions have been in violation of the law, nothing less.

Not even Congress is allowed to "legislate" enough of a change in the Constitution that would make it contradict itself! Congress can "amend" the Constitution & "clarify" specific sections of it by law, but they are not allowed to legislate anything that would supercede or void any part of the Constitution that exists. The reasoning for this is because it was We the People who "ordained & established" the Constitution & We the People have never "delegated" any power to the government that would allow them to violate the Constitution in any way, especially by any "Powers of Office."

Taking all of this into consideration, the current government (as it stands now & how it operates) is nothing more & nothing less than a foreign power that has invaded & infiltrated our nation, subverting the very core of our Sovereign Laws right out from under us! The only real "enforcement mechanism" our Constitution has to survive is us, the People! The Constitution itself gives us the Supreme Law we need to survive & prosper as a nation, but it cannot defend itself...We the People are the only defense for preserving our Supreme Law of the Land from foreign powers.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in